HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOLLINSHAUS PUD APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL 5.1.90 CITY COUNCIL HEARING - 6 90 - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER:
DATE: May 1, 1990
FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Albertson -Clark
SUBJECT:
Appeal of the Final Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on March 26,
1990, Denying the Collinshaus PUD, Preliminary and Final Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Council should consider the appeal based upon the record, and after
consideration, either uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the
Planning and Zoning Board.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On March 26, 1990 the Planning and Zoning Board denied the Collinshaus PUD,
Preliminary and Final Plan when a motion to approve the plan failed by a
2-5 vote.
On April 6, 1990, an appeal of that final decision. was made for the
appellant, Steven and Kelley Shreiner, by George H. Hass.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
The Collinshaus PUD, is a preliminary and final plan consisting of a
request to increase the number of residents at an existing group home from
10 to 12 senior residents. The site is located at 401 E. Swallow and is
zoned R-L-M, Low Density Multiple Family.
The Collinshaus Group Home was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board in
1983, to house 10 senior residents, the live-in owners and two staff. The
4,300 square foot structure was built for the group home and for living
space for the original owners of the property. The request to increase the
number of senior residents to 12 must be submitted as a Planned Unit
Development, since the current Group Home Ordinance otherwise limits the
number of residents at this group home to eight (excluding supervisors),
based on the zoning and the lot size (13,800 square feet).
The proposed PUD plan was evaluated against the "All Development Criteria"
Chart of the Land Development Guidance System. Groups homes are treated as
a residential use under the LDGS; however, since the Residential Density
Chart is applicable only for calculating residential density (number of
dwelling units per acre), the point chart was notused to evaluate this
proposal. The location of this group home is in proximity to shopping,
parks and public transit, which addresses several City land use policies.
Planning staff found the proposed project met the applicable "All
Development" criteria of the Land Development Guidance System and that the
increase in two residents would not create any additional.impacts. On this
14A
-2-
basis, staff recommended approval of the Collinshaus PUD, Preliminary and
Final Plan.
The Planning and Zoning Board denied the Collinshaus, PUD Preliminary and
Final Plan when a motion to approve the plan failed on a 2-5 vote at the
March 26, 1990 Board meeting. In failing to approve the plan, the Planning
and Zoning Board expressed concerns regarding the proposed increase in the
number of residents, which exceeds the allowable number of residents under
the City's Group Home ordinance, and concerns regarding social
compatibility with the proposed increase.
THE
APPEAL
The
appellant has filed the appeal on the following grounds:
1.
The Planning and Zoning Board committed an abuse of discretion
by
making a distinction between "residents" and "live-in" managers.
2..
The Planning and Zoning Board failed to properly interpret, apply
and
violated Section 13-16 through 13=25 of the Fort Collins City Code,
which is the Human Relations and An Ordinance,
by
making a distinction between elderly "residents" of the group home
and
"live-in" managers.
3.
The Planning and Zoning Board misinterpreted and misapplied Section
29-526 and Section 29-162(3) of the Fort Collins City Code, which
is
the Land Development Guidance System for Planned Unit Developments
and
the provision for pursuing approval for any land use through the
PUD
process in the R-L-M Zone, by referencing the Land Development Guidance
System as being a way to "circumvent-" the Group Home Ordinance.
4. The Planning and Zoning Board violated and misapplied Section 29-541 of
the Fort Collins City code, which is the Nonconforming Uses and
Structures Ordinance, by considering the change from "hive -in" managers
to "residents" a request of Planned Unit Development significance.
These grounds of appeal (abuse of discretion and failure to properly
interpret and apply City Code) are valid as set forth in Section 2-48 of
the Code.
SCOPE OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF APPEALED PRELIMINARY
The issues that the Council must resolve in this appeal are two -fold:
1. Did the Board abuse its discretion by making a distinction between
"residents" and "live-in" managers?
2.. Did the Board fail to properly interpret and apply relevant provisions
of the Code?